Sherwood wants to keep bikes away from their new Cannery Square plaza.

The City of Sherwood (about 17 miles southwest of Portland) is holding a public hearing during their City Council meeting tonight on a new ordinance that would ban “wheeled activities” — including bicycles — near public spaces.

Sherwood Police Chief Jeff Groth is spearheading the new ordinance. Here’s how he lays out the issue on page 52 of tonight’s City Council Meeting Packet (PDF here):

City Staff has identified a need to protect significant public investments in the City of Sherwood from damage resulting from improper use and to protect the City of Sherwood from liability that may arise from improper use.

The new code (see it below) would specifically prohibit the use of “bicycles, unicycles, roller-skates, roller-blades, scooters and skateboards” within 30 feet of “public spaces.” The new ordinance defines “public spaces” as any property that is “owned or held by the City of Sherwood for public use, including parks and open squares.” Failure to comply would result in a $50 citation.

Impetus for the ordinance comes from “improper use” of the new Cannery Square, a 12,000 square foot plaza on the corner of Pine and Columbia streets in downtown Sherwood. A background statement provided to City Council members explains that, “Public places within the city are designed, built and intended for pedestrian focused activities and are not conducive to use of bicycles/unicycles, roller skates/blades, scooters and/or skateboards.”

As someone who grew up in Orange County, California, I’m well aware of skateboard bans due to the damage they cause to structures; but adding bicycles into that mix is less common.

Our Washington County reporter Will Vanlue will try and attend the meeting tonight to learn more about the issue. Stay tuned for a follow-up.

If you live in or around Sherwood, consider showing up to the hearing at City Council tonight at 7:00 pm in City Hall (22560 Pine Street).

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

Still. I’m not so worried about them banning wheeled activities from any space that doesn’t also allow for cars. If cars are allowed, so are the bikes. End of story. To ask for someone to walk their bike through a square is not such a heinous request. But to ban bikes from “all public spaces” seems to have some bad conflicts and precedents built in.

Since the roads in front of of those public places are also not designed specifically for bikes but are ostensibly owned by the city of Sherwood, I suppose the law forbids riding on Sherwood’s roads as well. I guess somebody could lock up a bike at a rack on the sidewalk but I have to idea how they will have gotten that far without receiving a summons for some prior infraction. Too bad. Why do people go to Sherwood in the first place? Is it near Blackhawk Colorado?

Yes, the language here is dangerously vague. I could easily make an argument, based on this text, that bicycling is not allowed on the street unless there is a bike lane painted. I can understand prohibiting bicycling in an area that is meant primarily for pedestrians, similar to Portland’s sidewalk riding ordinance, but the text of section D needs to be amended:

[D.3. Riding or using a bicycle, unicycle, roller-skates, roller-blades, scooter, or skateboard on any public street or highway subject to existing traffic or vehicle codes.]

Catch me going to Sherwood or spending dollars in their town with silliness like this. Clearly, protecting public spaces from unnecessary damage is warranted, but this sounds like an official who either fundamentally doesn’t understand the concern, knows something about bicycle-initiated damage that we do not, or has a grudge.

As far as I can tell this also prohibits Personal Mobility Devices like a Hoveround or similar electric wheelchairs.

I haven’t seen anything as dangerous on the sidewalk as the woman?(too obese to tell) on a Hoveround-like device booking down the SW Millikan way bike lane and sidewalk at speeds of at least 15MPH. I have to conservatively estimate her weight at least above 350 pounds. Would someone like to explain to me why that is safe and a cyclist is not?

I understand the need for unilateral simple rules that are easy to understand, especially for the most moronic of police that need dirt simple laws so they know who to arrest.

But laws are designed to protect. To protect sometimes we must exclude but if we are going to waste our time and money arguing over a law and then waste time and money administering that law it should actually protect from the dangerous behavior, not simply exclude only the hazards that myopic politicians can envision.

Sherwood City Council Meeting Packet A. Definitions: As used in this section unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning: e. Scooter: Means a vehicle consisting of a platform mounted between two wheels or more with an upright steering handle attached to the front wheel and powered by human, gas or electric power.

Seems like a blanket law, primarily aimed at skaters and BMX riders, to protect public spaces and parks from damage. Covers the main offenders but also dissuades others from turning public greenspaces into private cyclocross practice courses, underground Segway drag racing strips, impromptu MTB trials sites, etc. No anti-bike conspiracy afoot and you can still ride the roads in and around Sherwood.

But of course the law will be implemented carefully! And ever officer of the law will dutifully make the important distinction between bmx versus skateboard versus holy commuter and will leave the commuter in peace while taking it to the miscreant bmx’ers who should get some sort of janitorial position because they aren’t doing well enough it school.

This crazy law can be beat but people have to show up in Sherwood and that is the tricky part.

I’m hoping Vanlue can come back from the meeting with some good information about what specific kinds of issues with skateboards, bikes…and the other things with wheels named in Sherwood’s proposed law, that the city hopes the law will effectively deal with.

“…As someone who grew up in Orange County, California, I’m well aware of skateboard bans due to the damage they cause to structures; but adding bicycles into that mix is less common. …” maus/bikeportland

People have also been using certain types of bikes…bmx and off-road bikes…for jumping,sliding and grinding on low walls, benches, steps, planters. Skates have been used this way as well. Downtown Portland has a lot of damage from this kind of use. It’s this kind of damage Sherwood’s probably hoping to avoid.

Maybe the city can write up its law a little better, making clear that it’s not seeking to eliminate the benefits of the use of bikes, skateboards, skates, etc. in the city, but only the destructive uses.

Perhaps it is better to consider this space as a “slow place” or “slow space” and it also helps to be logical: A walking parent matches the speed of their small child on a scoot bike, so the latter should be allowed. So it can be a “(normal) walking speed space” and this could also mean someone could ride a three-wheeled cargo bike very slow through it…. Maybe shoot for all of this as a compromise?

been saying this forever, but any architect that designs a plaza with ledges, “hubba” rails, planters, and stairs that are even remotely skate-able should not be given the business by a city that wants to keep skaters out.

city planners: please hire me for a nominal fee ($$$) and i will tell you if there are any desireable obstacles in your city plaza designs before you run with it.

i feel sorry for those poor guys that had to install 1000 skatestops on the vera katz esplinade

I attended the city council meeting tonight and it was clear that the intent of the ordinance was to discourage abuse and misuse of the features of the public spaces. The council noted that they needed to be supportive of active transportation, especially in light of the upcoming investment in Tonquin trail system. The ordinance passed with an amendment to include roadways as an exception in section D.

Well, I suppose if you’re commuting past the “public space” in the center of the road’s travel lane, you should be at least 30′, maybe more, from the “public space”. The road and shoulders is called a “right of way”, not a “public space”. Perhaps this technicality makes the ordinance moot so long as you are in the road.